Disagreement is often perceived negatively, yet it can be beneficial for learning and scientific inquiry. However, students tend to avoid engaging in disagreement. Peer critique activities offer a promising way to encourage students to embrace disagreement, which supports learning as students articulate their ideas, making them available for discussion, revision, and refinement. This study aims to better understand how students express disagreement during peer critique within small groups and how that affects moving their inquiry forward. It explores 5th-grade students' management of disagreement within a computer-supported collaborative modeling environment. Using conversation analysis, we identified various forms of disagreements employed by students when engaging with different audiences. We observed a tendency for students to disagree softly; that is, disagreement was implied and/or mitigated. Students' resolution of both direct and soft disagreements effectively promoted their collective knowledge advancement, including building shared scientific understanding and improving their models, while maintaining a positive socio-emotional climate. These findings have implications for designing CSCL environments with respect to supporting students in providing and responding to peer critiques at the group level.